I appreciate the HTML WG co-chairs attempting to ensure consistent
handling of issues with its recent feedback related to the <time>
element [1], but have to point out how uneven the handling really is.
This item was related to <time> being pulled, which happened recently.
Barely a week later, we seem to have gone from bug, to issue, to call
for proposal for a changed <time> item, as well as an addition of <data>
seemingly only to help microdata--or some such thing.
In the meantime, we still haven't resolved the concerns about longdesc
and other long standing issues.
In addition, I've watched the number of participants in the group drop
until about the only action we see in the HTML WG email list is bug
reports--many of which are nothing more than hack emails because of the
foolish comment box in the web specs--an occasional note by the
co-chairs, and a few individuals trying to reign in an out of control
process.
It's becoming almost impossible to follow what's happening to the HTML5
spec now. Yet the group still continues along the pre-defined schedule,
as if there's nothing out of the ordinary happening in the group.
There are some changes that might help tame the chaos, especially for
those of us on the outside looking in:
First, stop posting the bug reports to the email list. Too many are
garbage and clutter the list. And there are a significant number coming
from kids who get a kick out of posting certain words and seeing them
show up on the HTML WG email list.
In line with this, remove the comment box from the spec. People should
file comments through a formal system that requires a name--either this
email list, the HTML WG email list, or Bugzilla. After all, how can you
verify whether a bug fix resolves the bug requestor's concern if the bug
was submitted anonymously via a comment box?
Time to grow up a bit, don't you think?
To ensure that people are aware of changes the editor is
making--especially significant changes, such as the removal of
<time>--post only bug reports that result in changes, with the
understanding that the change can be reverted if the item was not also
discussed in the HTML WG email list before the change was made. And
allow those of us on the outside to also ask for a revert, since LC is
supposedly our time to make comments.
It would help if those who file bug reports, also sent an email with
more detail to the HTML WG, or this email list. Not for simple things
like spelling or pure editing changes--I'm talking about changes to the
HTML.
Second, is there anyway to post a difference annotation between the
editor's draft and the Last Call document, so we can see the changes
being made? If nothing else, perhaps a list of changes? Following the
WHATWG twitter feed seems counter-intuitive, and forcing people to look
at CVS or other logs may be all cool and geeky, but not particularly
good communication.
Third, verify that the document will be going through Last Call again
because of significant changes. Especially considering how many
significant changes are being made under the radar, so to speak.
Fourth, resolve issues from latest to newest--not based on the
requestor's HTML5 editor's favored status.
Thank you.
Shelley
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0189.html